Sociologists have a distinctive approach to studying governmental power and authority that

differs from the perspective of political scientists. For the most part, political scientists focus
on studying how power is distributed in different types of political systems. They would
observe, for example, that the United States political system is divided into three distinct
branches (legislative, executive, and judicial), and they would explore how public opinion
affects political parties, elections, and the political process in general. Sociologists, however,
tend to be more interested in the influences of governmental power on society and in how
social conflicts arise from the distribution of power. Sociologists also examine how the use of
power affects local, state, national, and global agendas, which in turn affect people
differently based on status, class, and socioeconomic standing.

What Is Power?

Figure 1. Nazi leader Adolf Hitler was one of the most powerful and destructive dictators in modern history.
He is pictured here with fascist Benito Mussolini of Italy. (Photo courtesy of U.S. National Archives and
Records Administration)

For centuries, philosophers, politicians, and social scientists have explored and
commented on the nature of power. Pittacus (c. 640–568 B.C.E.) opined, “The
measure of a man is what he does with power,” and Lord Acton perhaps more
famously asserted, “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely”
(1887). Indeed, the concept of power can have decidedly negative connotations, and
the term itself is difficult to define.

Many scholars adopt the definition developed by German sociologist Max Weber,
who said that power is the ability to exercise one’s will over others (Weber 1922).
Power affects more than personal relationships; it shapes larger dynamics like social
groups, professional organizations, and governments. Similarly, a government’s
power is not necessarily limited to control of its own citizens. A dominant nation, for
instance, will often use its clout to influence or support other governments or to seize
control of other nation-states. Efforts by the U.S. government to wield power in other
countries have included joining with other nations to form the Allied forces during
World War II, entering Iraq in 2002 to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime, and
imposing sanctions on the government of North Korea in the hopes of constraining
its development of nuclear weapons.
Figure 2. Young people and students were among the most ardent supporters of democratic reform in the
recent Arab Spring. Social media also played an important role in rallying grassroots support. (Photo
courtesy of cjb22/flickr)

Endeavors to gain power and influence do not necessarily lead to violence,

Modern technology has made such forms of nonviolent reform easier to implement.
Today, protesters can use cell phones and the Internet to disseminate information
and plans to masses of protesters in a rapid and efficient manner. In the Arab Spring
uprisings, for example, Twitter feeds and other social media helped protesters
coordinate their movements, share ideas, and bolster morale, as well as gain global
support for their causes. Social media was also important in getting accurate
accounts of the demonstrations out to the world, in contrast to many earlier situations
in which government control of the media censored news reports. Notice that in
these examples, the users of power were the citizens rather than the governments.
They found they had power because they were able to exercise their will over their
own leaders. Thus, government power does not necessarily equate to absolute
power.

Types of Authority

The protesters in Tunisia and the civil rights protesters of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s
day had influence beyond their position in a government. Their influence came, in
part, from their ability to advocate for what many people held as important values.
Government leaders might have this kind of influence as well, but they also have the
advantage of wielding the power associated with their official positions and
considerable state resources. As this example indicates, there is more than one type
of power in a community.

Authority refers to accepted power—that is, power that people agree to follow
according to specific procedures. People listen to authority figures because they feel
that these individuals are worthy of respect, or because they are in a position that
inherently carries a degree of respect. Generally speaking, people perceive the
objectives and demands of an authority figure as reasonable, legitimate, beneficial,
or true.

A citizen’s interaction with a police officer is a good example of how people react
to and interact with authority in everyday life. For instance, a person who sees the
flashing red and blue lights of a police car in their rearview mirror usually pulls to the
side of the road without hesitation. Such a driver most likely assumes that the police
officer behind them serves as a legitimate source of authority and has the right to
pull them over. As part of their official duties, the police officer then has the power to
issue a speeding ticket if the driver was driving too fast. If the same officer, however,
were to command the driver to follow them home and mow their lawn, the driver
would likely protest that the officer does not have the authority to make such a
request. We are generally aware of what authority figures have power to request,
and are also aware when authority figures overstep their position.

Not all authority figures are police officers, elected officials or government
authorities. Besides formal offices, authority can arise from tradition and personal
qualities. Max Weber, one of the key figures in sociology, realized this when he
examined individual action as it relates to authority, as well as large-scale structures
of authority and how they relate to a society’s economy. Based on this work, Weber
developed a classification system for authority. His three types of authority are
traditional authority, charismatic authority, and legal-rational authority (Weber 1922).

Traditional Authority
According to Weber, the power of traditional authority is accepted because that
has traditionally been the case; its legitimacy exists because it has been accepted
for a long time. Britain’s Queen Elizabeth, for instance, occupies a position that she
inherited based on the traditional rules of succession for the monarchy. People
adhere to traditional authority because they are invested in the past and feel
obligated to perpetuate it. In this type of authority, a ruler typically has no real force
to carry out their will, and their position depends primarily on a group’s respect.
A more specific form of traditional authority is patrimonialism, which is traditional
domination facilitated by an administration and military that are purely personal
instruments of the master (Eisenberg 1998). In this form of authority, all officials are
personal favorites appointed by the ruler. These officials have no rights, and their
privileges can be increased or withdrawn based on the caprices of the leader. The
political organization of ancient Egypt typified such a system: when the royal
household decreed that a pyramid be built, every Egyptian was forced to work
toward its construction.
Traditional authority can be intertwined with race, class, and gender. In most
societies, for instance, men are more likely to be privileged than women and thus are
more likely to hold roles of authority. It is not uncommon for a man to be the
automatic leader of a family unit; in some countries, however, it is the woman who is
the presumptive leader. Regardless, most contexts provide a traditional structure of
authority, even among the household unit. Similarly, members of dominant racial
groups or upper-class families win respect more readily. In the United States, the
Kennedy family, which has produced many prominent politicians, exemplifies this
model.

Charismatic Authority
Followers accept the power of charismatic authority because they are drawn to the
leader’s personal qualities. The appeal of a charismatic leader can be extraordinary,
and can inspire followers to make unusual sacrifices or to persevere in the midst of
great hardship and persecution. Charismatic leaders usually emerge in times of
crisis and offer innovative or radical solutions. They may even offer a vision of a new
world order. Despite the catastrophic consequences of events, Hitler’s rise to power
in the post-World War I economic depression of Germany is an example.

Charismatic leaders tend to hold power for short periods of time, and according to
Weber, they are just as likely to be tyrannical as they are heroic. Diverse male
leaders such as Hitler, Napoleon, Jesus Christ, César Chávez, Malcolm X, and
Winston Churchill are all considered charismatic leaders. Some of them held formal
positions of power, but many did not. Because so few women have held dynamic
positions of leadership throughout history, the list of charismatic female leaders is
comparatively short. Many historians consider figures such as Joan of Arc, Margaret
Thatcher, and Mother Teresa to be charismatic leaders. Michelle Obama, who no
longer holds a formal position of authority (and some might even argue that being
First Lady itself does not translate into authority), is a current example of a
charismatic leader.

Rational-Legal Authority
According to Weber, power made legitimate by laws, written rules, and regulations is
termed rational-legal authority. In this type of authority, power is vested in a
particular rationale, system, or ideology and not necessarily in the person who
implements the specifics of that doctrine. With rational-legal authority, the power to
influence does not fall on individuals themselves, but instead falls on specific,
structured, bureaucratic offices, and individuals holding specific positions have the
authority to act in the name of such positions. A nation that follows a constitution
applies this type of authority. On a smaller scale, you might encounter rational-legal
authority in the workplace via the standards set forth in the employee handbook,
which provides the employee with a different type of authority than that of the boss.
Of course, ideals are seldom replicated in the real world. Few governments or
leaders can be neatly categorized. Some leaders, like Mohandas Gandhi for
instance, can be considered charismatic and legal-rational authority figures.
Similarly, a leader or government can start out exemplifying one type of authority and
gradually evolve or change into another type. This is not unusual—charismatic
leaders often enter rational-legal authority institutions and it is their charisma that
facilitates their election. Similarly, an individual in a rational-legal authority position
gains exposure, which may allow them to be charismatic leaders following their exit
from formal authority positions.